The Corn Refiners Association (CRA), through its website SweetSurpise.com and a slew of TV and print ads, is stating that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is safe in moderation. While many in the blogosphere have roundly criticized the CRA, few have actually bothered to take note of the message being put forward: HFCS isn’t the poison that consumers think it is.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Huget echoes this assessment:

“I hate to admit it — and don’t get me wrong, I don’t think corn syrup is health food or that the industry has anything but its own best interests in mind — but I think the group is right on this one. The American Medical Association in June issued a report saying there’s not enough evidence to prove that HFCS contributes to overweight, obesity or diabetes any more than other sweeteners. (The report does note that more research is needed.)”

Most of the harshest critiques read more like theater reviews than meaningful health pieces. They come from the perspective that these ads are portrayals of mindless “Stepford Wives” doing the bidding of big corporations. Blogs like MomLogic have even concluded that, somehow, the campaign is trying to convince people that HFCS is the cornerstone of a nutritious diet.

But the principle reason that these ads are important is because of the portrayal of one mother talking to another about how unreliable word of mouth can be on food safety.  Moms shouldn’t accept idle gossip or scary evening news stories about what’s found on supermarket shelves. And if that’s the loudest statement from the CRA’s efforts, why would you want to muzzle it?

The New York Times did an editorial on food irradiation that prompted me to do my own research. It was interesting that they mentioned that “NASA has long fed astronauts irradiated beef”.  Anyway, this is an example of a scary word (radiation) attracting far more attention than some other processes without a scary name.

Several hours of research later, here’s what I’ve got:  Critics say it should not be used because of loss of nutrients, quality and potentially harmful chemical byproducts.  The Organic Consumers Association makes the claim:

Eating irradiated food may make “the body more susceptible to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, liver damage, muscular breakdown and other serious problems

There is definitely a yuck factor (”mutations, radiation, etc.”), but is there a danger?

• We lose nutrients when we freeze and can food to preserve it, but nobody is screaming that those processes be disallowed.  Loss of nutrients is no more than, and often less than other methods we use to extend shelf life or make food safer to eat.
• Chemical byproducts seemed to be the most likely real concern to me.  The citations I found that referenced harmful effects of feeding irradiated food were mostly from Japan and Eastern Europe.  The doses of radiation used on the animal feed were one to several orders of magnitude higher than what is used in our food (think Chernobyl and the atomic bomb).  The Institute for Food Technology reviews several research reports on the unique chemical byproducts that may be produced by irradiation.  Even in those that show potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effects, the lowest exposure amount at which effects are seen is 8000-10,000 times higher than would be consumed in a normal diet.  Levels of benzene and toluene are lower in irradiated beef than in juch non-irradiated fish.  We produce carcinogens every time we grill or burn food.
• Labelling.  Irradiated food must be labelled in the grocery store, when it is a major component.  Spices, flavorings etc. may be irradiated and included without labelling.  Restaurants are not required to disclose use of irradiated food items.

Irradiation is primarily a process used to increase food safety (lowering risk of bacterial contamination) and secondarily to increase shelf life (fresh strawberries last 2-3 times longer if irradiated).  Although I agree that we need to address food safety on the production level, too, there will always be bacterial contamination and if a process reduces risk of food-borne illness without increasing other risks, why not use it?

My bottom line?  I think irradiation is no more likely to decrease food’s value or increase it’s carcinogenicity than most other cooking and sanitation practices.  The food safety aspects are incontrovertible.
Here’s some links and resources  to help you do your own research.

FSIS document explaining irradiation

Iowa State University fact sheet

Some discussions:  Food Production Daily, Health Castle, Ethicurean, Fresh Talk.   Blogher summarizes many blog posts–lots of gut-level distrust, but no solid scientific reasons to reject it.  A great two-sided discussion follows.

Got distracted by Ike, but here are this week’s gleanings from the web.

TV Food Shows teach bad food hygeine:   A study at Texas Tech of 49 food shows on Food Network found inadequate hand washing, cross-contamination and a number of bad-examples that could lead to food illness.

Identify Greenwashing:  from Ecogeek. A new website claims to scientifically evaluate and report on products and their true “green-ness”.

EPA’s Climate Change Kids Site.  Thanks to Mama Joules for finding this cool site with lots of games and information about climate change and what we can do about it.

Does Sarah Palin have a position on crane poop and fresh peas?:  From Barfblog.  18 people in Alaska fell sick with campylobacter appearing to have gotten it from eating raw peas from field peppered with sandhill crane poop.  What geese can do to a sidewalk, cranes do to a field.  So what IS the practical on-farm food safety system for fresh produce?

News, views and tidbits plucked from the web.

An Attack on ‘Unnatural Agriculture’?.  agEconomist presents some thought-provoking arguments about why it is important to consider all options (including biotech) and the economic impacts of policy changes in our drive for sustainability.

Animal Cloning and Food:  More Than a Feeling.  The “ick factor” is a perfect example of the sentiments behind the opposition to cloning and the larger issue of genetically modified food: “It doesn’t feel right.”

Organic Food is no Middle Class Fad.   Helen Browning of the UK’s Soil Association says that preferences for organic have made it through recessions before.  I find it most interesting that she phrases her descriptions in terms of “ethical choices” and not safety, which is more how I see the reasoning behind many folks’ organic choice.

Cheap, Healthy Food.   Some good advice here, such as reminders that simple, fresh foods are both healthier and cheaper that most junk foods.  Sad that canned fruits and fish win out over fresh in the price wars, though.

Church wine bars?  From Chow.  The Church of England is contemplating opening a series of wine bars to bolster both its membership and support the wine industry.

The first line of the article: “Milk and meat from the offspring of cloned livestock are entering the food supply”, but the headline reads “Animal Clones Are in Food Supply”

I know newspapers are in the business of selling news and must attract customers to do so, but shame on the Wall Street Journal for grabbing attention with something that is sensational and not actually true.

There may well be offspring of cloned animals in the food supply.  This is not a big deal.  First of all, the FDA’s review of cloning technology has ruled that even meat and milk from cloned animals themselves is OK.  Giving a nod to public concern, they have asked for a voluntary withholding of the clones themselves from the food supply.  Cloning company,  Bovance, (and business partners ViaGen and TransOva) have put a tracking system into place for the cloned animals themselves to facilitate this.

Cloning involves taking a cell from the donor animal and inserting the part of the cell that contains the DNA into an egg (from the same species of animal) from which the DNA has been removed.  This ‘reprograms’ the donor cell into acting like a fertilized egg, and it grows and develops into a regular embryo that is genetically identical to the donor animal.  Reprogramming does not affect the chromosomes or DNA of the animal, but does affect how the DNA (genes) are used to control the development of the embryo.

But as for the offspring of clones? Because the DNA is not changed, offspring of clones are in no way different than any other animals. Even though there is no scientific reason to expect them to be different, there have been studies done on offspring of clones (all the way through production of milk and meat, and sure enough–no differences!

There may well be an insignificant number of offspring of clones that have been harvested.  Based on the facts, I fail to see why we should care. As far as food safety goes, this is really a non-issue.

Can an Organic Girl go corporate without selling out? A really thought-provoking piece from Ethicurean. From grass-roots to becoming the Martha Stewart of the organic empire, is MaryJane still for real?

What belongs in a Farmer’s Market? Stuff from farms, right? Ahhhh, if only it were so simple! from Slowfoodblog. We get complaints about not enough variety at our local market in the dog-days of August. Would we be better off buying from the San Antonio produce terminal or sticking to our “home-grown only” rule?

Food Safety Consumer Survey: Through Food Law Prof Blog. The results of a 2006 telephone survey of consumers says that 56% of respondents thought one was more like to get food poisoning from eating at a restaurant than from eating at home.

Bagged Lunch Safety Tips. From Natural Family Recipes blog, just in time for the start of school.

Cow Poo Powers Carnival Ride. From Ecogeek. At the California state fair, the Barnyard Animal Train is powered by locally produced biogas made from dairy cow manure. Local, sustainable AND educational! How much better can you get?

As a local foodie, small producer and farmer’s market vendor, I found myself in an odd position in my last post; defending Monsanto. Although I think Monsanto has a less-than-great track record in the PR department, as a scientist, it was relatively easy to post on the facts. As I cruised the internet looking for blogs, articles and op-ed pieces on rBST, most of what I read about why we should oppose the use of rBST was scientifically unfounded and sometimes completely at odds with reality. There are some legitimate concerns about the use of the product, and (believe it or not), there are also some legitimate reasons to support its continued availability.

So, here’s some issues to think about:

Is it ethical to remove from the marketplace a product that is scientifically safe, but has significant public opposition, if its removal raises the prices of a basic foodstuff? Remember that those most adversely affected are likely to be the least vocal and least politically represented. If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?

Who bears the cost when farmers use lower efficiency production methods in favor of other factors such as sustainability, animal welfare, or organic? Dairy farmers use rBST because it lowers their cost of production per gallon of milk. I suspect that the first “rBST-free” brands may have paid a premium to farmers for foregoing the use of the product. But, as major processors became “rBST-free”, they simply imposed a restriction on the product’s use without any change in compensation to the producer.

What is the meaning behind the “rBST-free labels“? Last time I researched it, many claims such as “our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST” had minimal checks to make sure the producers were not using the product. Milk bearing the label is very likely produced on large-scale dairy farms, and no more likely to be organic, pastured, or local than non-labelled milk. And finally, it has been shown to have no less “hormones” than non-labelled milk.

Optimal versus maximal production: Whether it be through the administration of rBST or traditional selection for extreme milk production, there is no doubt that the extra production comes as some costs. Productive life of dairy cattle (the length of time they remain in the milking herd before they become salvage beef) has decreased dramatically as pounds of milk produced per cow have increased. rBST increases production, as does selective breeding. What is optimum? Is it the same as maximum?

So, before you make your purchasing decision based on that “rBST-free” label, or demand that Monsanto pull the product from the market, make sure that your reasons are sound and you are getting what you pay for.

Monsanto recently issued a press release announcing they are divesting of the rBST product. Monsanto states they are not removing the product from the market, but rather looking to offload the business to a different company. In this first of several posts on rBST, I’ll try to provide some scientific background.

rBST or recombinant bovine somatotropin is a synthetically produced hormone that is identical to a hormone produced in the pituitary gland of cattle. In cattle, BST is present in milk at about 10 parts per billion, whether they receive rBST or not. BST is broken down by the digestive tract when milk is consumed. Even when injected directly into pituitary glands in humans, the BST hormone has no effect (this was tried when BST was first discovered, thinking it might be a way to treat growth hormone deficiency in humans).

The FDA’s review of the product, including levels of IGF-1 and BST in the milk concluded that rBST was safe and that milk from rBST-treated cows was indistinguishable from non-treated animals. Much of the original data submitted to the FDA has been subsequently validated in other research.

The recent JADA paper we discussed here also found no biologically meaningful differences in rBST-free, traditional and organic milk. In fact, the few statistical differences were often in a direction counter to what opponents of rBST would have us believe.

A study at Cornell University concluded that the use of rBST reduced the carbon footprint of milk production. It does this through increasing the efficiency with which cows convert feed to milk. Less feed per gallon = less poop, less greenhouse gas and less cows needed per gallon.

Given all the “rBST-free” labels appearing on the shelves though, there is obviously some controversy here: Wikipedia presents a reasonable summary of the rBST issues. The use of rBST does increase mastitis (inflammation of the udder), although this is similar to what is seen in high-producing dairy cows that are not treated with rBST. So, the question is more of how high the production rate is, than of rBST.

Scientifically, I don’t believe there is any food safety reason to base your milk choices on rBST status of the cows that produce it.

Weekly Earthlinks a day early, as we are headed North to my “farma mater” to see family.

An Upside to Higher Food Prices? Do higher food prices have some benefit for humanity? Do higher food prices spur production, mean more income for farmers and discourage use of food for fuel? Or do they destabilize governments and contribute to ill-health? Enter your opinion on this discussion on the poll from The Economist.

Remember Food Safety when Reusing Plastic Containers: Some tips from the USDA–Do not use plastics such as margarine containers in the microwave. Avoid using garbage bags to store food. Do not re-use plastic drink bottles.

Get the dirt on eco-eating: Know your certification programs. From our friends at American Farmland Trust; a handy list (with links) to many eco-conscious and sustainability-focused certification programs.

Label-Wise, American Savvy About On Par With Global Consumers : An online Nielson survey says that despite the plethora of labels on our food, Americans don’t seem to be all that much savvier about food labeling than their counterparts in the rest of the world.

Celebrity Dog Food: Rachel Ray has released “Nutrish”, her own line of dog food. Don’t miss the satirical response from Gallery of the Absurd. And I thought “Angus” branded dog food was silly!

A post comparing airlines and food safety got me to thinking: In general, is large-scale-produced food more safe than smaller-scale production?

One factor that is often not considered when we evaluate small-scale production food safety is “assessment bias”. If Joe’s 2 bushels of homegrown tomatoes from the farmer’s market are tainted with Salmonella, it is likely to go undetected or reported. Even if people got sick and reported the illness it is unlikely his tomatoes would be identified as the source and even less likely it would make national headlines.

I don’t think we have good statistics on real safety measures of small versus large production. Yet, food safety, especially for meat, ranked above quality and price in a survey of local food purchasers in the upper midwest.

There are some things “small food” has going for it with regard to food safety:

• Accountability. All producers, large and small are accountable. Small producers are usually directly accountable to the consumer. We put our livelihoods on the line each time we sell an inferior or unsafe product.
• Known source (sometimes). I say sometimes here, because many farmer’s markets sell produce obtained at large terminal produce hubs. Here in Texas, that means that unless you know that your market vendor is growing their own, you may be buying jalapenos and tomatoes from the Rio Grande valley or Mexico (one of the sources for the recent salmonella outbreak).
• Direct relationship with consumer. Having to look my customers in the eye when they buy my beef or ask me questions about my production, quality and safety practices is more effective than a whole slew of federal regulations.

On the other hand, “big food” is often under more rigorous scrutiny and regulation to ensure food safety. Many types of food have mandatory testing not requred for small and local producers. Many of the regulations and production practices in use were put in place to ensure food safety. Small producers often do not have food safety training or food safety plans.

So, don’t presume that local = safe. Ask questions of your local producer about productions practices, food safety, etc. Ask about sources for produce, handling and refrigeration practices for meat and eggs. When purchasing from a small producer it is up to you to be your own “food safety authority”.